* Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> [2004-04-30 17:36+0200]
>
> To go along with Dan ...
>
> I also prefer the / approach in principle because it defines more neatly the "subject
> indicator", but consider that e.g. OWL uses fragment identifiers to define classes and
> properties ...
>
> Will not people be confused with OWL elements defined by
> http://example.org/myontology#class001
> and SKOS concepts defined by http://example.org/myskos/concept001
Some RDF/RDFS/OWL vocabs end in a / and others end in a # and others do
other things. This is the current state of affairs. The confusion is
only a problem because these different approaches have different
technical and standards characteristics (and those aren't well
explained, currently).
> What about namespace management?
An important but relatively independent problem, I think.
> And having, e.g. for GEMET, over 8000 different resources/concepts, if you just want to
> download the whole stuff, hmm...
> Is not it more simple to have a / namespace for a whole SKOS scheme, and # for each
> concept in it?
>
> We've been through this in Published Subjects TC, without clear conclusion ...
I've a few years experience using the http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Cat
etc approach, and have to say it is useful. The ability to return a
useful chunk of information from a larger dataset is something I am
reluctant to give up. Surely in the future we'll have richer (SKOS API,
RDF DAWG etc) interfaces to these datasets, but the current approach can
be implemented with a simple filetree or CGI script, and has proved
reasonably popular.
Dan